You are here

The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 7 - Elise Crombez

Submitted by Admin on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 22:13

Previous parts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. This entry is a response to a commentator saying that apart from Karolina Kurkova, other models used by Victoria's Secret are suitable for lingerie modeling. Really?

Elise Crombez has been used by Victoria's Secret. One look at her face and it is instantaneously clear that male homosexuals are involved.

Pictures of her physique speak for themselves about her suitability for lingerie modeling.

What kind of physique would normal people expect to see in a lingerie model? How about the following?

Some close-ups of the woman's face, though these are of little importance here.

Comments

Some models such as this one may not look feminine in general, but in VS ads they are made to look feminine through photoshopping/airbrushing, etc etc. Go take a look at victoriassecret.com. Other than the supermodels such as Ambrosio, Lima, and Bunchden (whom I will never think looks cute anyways, airbrushing or not), I don't know the other models' names, and am pretty sure they're not as attractive in real life. However, in the ads, they sure do look damn cute, and that is all that matters: what they look like the advertisement, not in real life. That's what sells. I'm sure they've never used Elise for a VS fashion show, or at least not in the recent ones. Most of the women in the VS fashion shows are attractive enough to model lingerie, IMO.

Hey man, just wanted to tell you this is a really interesting site. I can see you put a lot of time and thought into this. I mostly agree (95% +) with where you're coming from, although I think you might be a little harsh on some of the V.S. models. It seems like you picked out the ugliest one (Elise Crombez) to make your point. If I saw her on the street I wouldn't even look twice, I see 100 women a day way prettier than her.

I couldn't agree more about how silly it is that the fashion industry is dominated by super-skinny girls who aren't attractive at all. You put a spin on it that I never thought through, as far as them being less feminine and more masculine than what a normal red-blooded guy likes. Your point that the industry is dominated by homosexuals is well taken. If their taste is the yardstick by which the models get chosen, then there should be no surprise that's what you get - skinny women with no curves who resemble teenage boys.

I also like your side-by-side comparisons of "fashion" vs. "glamor" models, they are totally effective to the point of being hilarious. Having said all this, I don't think there's much chance that any of this will change. Women, not men, are the target audience for fashion-type publications; I do not know a single guy who knows anything about that industry or who pays any attention to it. The purpose of fashion models is to sell clothes to women, not turn men on.

In my experience, when women encounter a female like the ones in your "attractive women" section, they usually take an instant dislike to her. I've seen it happen over and over again. They feel threatened and competetive, and sometimes they're not even sure why. I've had a few women ask me straight out - "What's attactive in a woman?", or "What women do you find attractive?". When I give them a straight honest answer, they argue with me! As if they can argue me into liking something different. They'll say, "Oh she's trashy/sluttly looking, now so-and-so is actually beautiful". If a woman can fit into that mold of looking beautiful to other women without being "threatening" (i.e. overly sexy), she can make a really good living modelling.

Some women will never understand what is attractive to a guy, and no amount of evidence and logic is going to convince them otherwise. Just check out any women's magazine (like Cosmo), the articles in there are stupid to the point of being unbelievable. Like the "How to turn on your man" type stuff. It's so obvious the articles are written by a woman; if the article were written by a guy it would be pretty short and simple. Some women might read it and go, "That's it? It can't be that easy!" A man's needs are pretty basic when it comes down to it, it's almost like some women can't grasp the reality of what simple creatures we are. ;-)

Anyway, good site, and don't let the negative posts discourage you. At the end of the day I'm not sure you're going to actually convince anyone who doesn't already understand where you're coming from, since most people are pretty closed minded when it comes to this stuff. But who knows, if you successfully convince just one anorexic girl to lay off the diet and have a burger, then you've done some good. ;-)

One thing - I'd love to hear your take on the Paris Hilton craze. Her fame seems to be a case of the emperor has no clothes. Does anyone actually think she looks attractive? She's so super skinny and ugly, with that super-pronounced jaw. Not in the least bit feminine in my opinion.

I agree that many of the V.S. models you've shown are fairly man-ish and pretty ugly, although I think Heidi Klum is hot, even if she does have a strong jaw. However: aren't women the customers for the fashion industry? I've heard jokes about men the V.S. catalog as pornography, but the only people I know who actually get the catalog are women. So, maybe the fashion industry is catering to its women customers, and maybe women appreciate models they're attracted to, i.e. models that have male qualities.

By the way, I think Tricia Helfer might be a candidate for "ugliest supermodel". Her looks might have flown on the catwalk, but transitioning to "Battlestar Galactica", a TV show with a near 100% male audience, was a big mistake. She was even ugly in her Playboy photoshoot. Feast your eyes, but you may want to bring a bag:

Sarah: You need to stop commenting here. Your comments are at best useless, and the comment you left above is one of your best ones. You are telling me that Victoria’s Secret is using “photoshopping/airbrushing, etc.” to make its models look more feminine in the ads. What have I been saying all along?

Quote:

I have been saying that this company is using airbrushing, posing tricks and a number of models with breast implants to make these masculinized models look more feminine, thereby acknowledging that lingerie models need to be on the feminine side. However, the question is why not use feminine models in the first place? I don’t believe I should have to repeat the answer. Read the previous parts.

I don’t know if I have a picture of Elise in a VS show, but VS has used her for its lingerie show. In a VS show, she would look like in her picture above with a blue two-piece dress and handbag.

T: I do not consider Elise to be ugly; she is just masculine/unattractive. I haven’t made my case by just citing her; look up the previous parts. Part 6 addressed Adriana Lima whom I don’t think anybody would consider to be ugly or manly by a long shot.

You are right that female high-fashion models are meant to sell clothes to women, not turn men on. But does this mean that the looks of high-fashion models are chosen with sales in mind? There is a great deal of evidence that what most men find attractive in women is also what most women find attractive in women; see this. Even if one were to assume that it is best to avoid very attractive women to avoid making buyers jealous, it certainly makes sense to use women with at least mildly pleasant looks from the perspective of most women, which would translate to feminine but not very attractive women. And what is the bright idea of using skinny models when their looks disturb many women who are potential buyers?

You need to reconsider your jealously assumption. Whereas a number of women who realize that the models shown in the attractive women section have above average attractiveness will dislike them, this will not solely be a result of the models’ attractiveness, but also because most of these women are nude models. Nudity will not be an issue with respect to modeling clothes. In addition, you would have noted that cosmetics models are shown with perfect skin. Should this make potential buyers jealous and avoid the product or buy the product to acquire the skin of the model shown? Many products are marketed as “buy this and look like this or acquire the charisma/other attribute of this person,” which is especially true of the exclusivity element conveyed by high-fashion merchandize. Therefore, does it not make sense to use high-fashion models (I am not talking about mere fashion models) with looks that avoid disturbing the majority, are consistent with majority preferences and convey a sense of exclusivity, something that wouldn’t be even close to the adolescent-boy look preferred by gay fashion designers? You have to understand that the looks of high-fashion models have nothing to do with the requirements of effective marketing. Designer clothing is highly desirable and, in the absence of alternatives, women will patronize the fashion designers even if they mostly use models whom they find unattractive and often disturbing to look at.

I am not discouraged by negative posts. I have work to do and I will do it regardless of what kind of comments I get. And, I am going to bring down the prevalence of anorexia.

Paris Hilton’s fame is not a result of her looks, but because she is a super-rich woman who cannot seem to avoid controversy and has a bunch of nude pictures and action videos circulating around. I have addressed Claudia Schiffer’s more important comments regarding skinny fashion models here.

Steve: What most women find attractive in women is the same as what most men find attractive in women. See my reply to “T” above. Tricia Helfer is masculine, but I don’t see how you can call her ugly. There are numerous top-ranked high-fashion models that look less attractive than her.

"Sarah: You need to stop commenting here. Your comments are at best useless, and the comment you left above is one of your best ones. You are telling me that Victoria’s Secret is using “photoshopping/airbrushing, etc.” to make its models look more feminine in the ads. What have I been saying all along? "

Wait wait wait....

Sarah's comments = useless

Sarah says something that is basically the same as something you've previously declared.

8D: Sarah's comment is useless because she has pointed out what I have been saying all along but without explaining the underlying reason; her comment is useless because she has added nothing new and provided no explanation of the observation.

8D: This series is not complete yet. There are many more models to address. I haven't been saying that all VS models are masculine...just that a lot of them are. On the other hand, Miranda Kerr appears to have a masculine element in her, which can be clarified by pictures, but this will be in a separate entry.

So you like porn stars and think that's the definition of true beauty, you also have a huge anti-gay stance going on here. Who are you, a man, to tell all women what they should ideally look like? God forbid I not fit your personal standard of what a beautiful woman looks like. And why is there a need to educate people on feminine beauty? The world doesn't need someone like you to judge women on whether or not they're beautiful. There is no standard - every woman is beautiful and sexy and everyone has their own opinion on who they find is beautiful and sexy. Stop reducing women to body parts and stop the misogyny.

People who have seen Elise in person have said she is quite attractive. She has a boyish physique but she works her stuff on the VS runway and she is a fabulous model. I think its sad that you have such a narrow definition of beauty and femininity that you can't appreciate anything different or unusual.

Disgusted: I mostly avoid porn stars, partly because they tend to be masculinized women. This site is not about how women should look like. It is about appropriate looks among models in various settings and beauty pageant contestants. You should read the FAQ to understand the necessity of this educational site. Documenting some unflattering correlates of homosexuality is not being anti-gay and there is nothing misogynistic about this site.

Danielle: The higher the expression of attractiveness, the fewer the people who have it. Therefore, beauty does occupy a narrow range. In your picture the appearance is one of androgyny, not femininity. If Elise’s looks are alluring, then they are to the homosexuals who dominate the fashion business, which is why Elise is a top-ranked high-fashion model and the likes of Ginger and Eunice have no possibility of doing high-fashion modeling at present. Women like Ginger and Eunice do not have to “pose like whores”; they typically do it because they want to, and to my knowledge Eunice hasn’t done anything beyond topless artistic nude modeling.

I'm sorry in advance, and I don't mean to be rude (this will be my last comment here as I've got other things to do), but all of the women you've chosen to be attractive look like white trash, there is just no other way to tell you about the impression I get.

He said: "Some women will never understand what is attractive to a guy, and no amount of evidence and logic is going to convince them otherwise."

Actually, as an artist, I have a very good idea of what beauty is, and while I am not male, myself, as well as other women, are pretty damn intelligent enough to know what true beauty is.

It is true that many of these trashy looking women who most likely expose too much skin are getting all the (wrong) attention, but in sum, women with class are resentful of women like that, because women like myself, we're trying to set new standards for women, rather than being perceived as objects.

Men have never been objectified as much as women, and that is why intelligent and classy women do not like trashy-looking women, because we know they are trying to appeal to the lowest-common denominator and because it is an insult to women as a whole.

Women may also feel "threatened" because such sleazy looking women are perceived as homewreckers, and this is where you men get it right: of course women are threatened by whores. Just as all men would be threatened if their wife was being advanced on by a Lothario.

The only difference between a male Lothario and trashy women is that the trashy woman is more obvious -- she looks it and dresses very provacativly. I wouldn't blame ANY woman for wanting to protect her boyfriend or husband from a "skank."

In the end, what does it all mean anyway? We don't tend to marry people in pictures on the internet or in the magazines. Most men marry women in "real life" and vice versa. These women, both the fashion models and the white trash versions, are just illusions.

I've seen a bunch of people say that a lot of Erik's images of attractive women on this website look like white trash. And I can see where that impression comes from. But you know? I think that's really missing the point, because the perception of a woman as "white trash" depends on stuff like clothing style, makeup, hairstyle, and body language and facial expressions.

Erik isn't saying that feminine beauty is about adopting all that stuff which makes these women look like white trash to some people because of symbolizing lower class. He is saying that the proportions of these women are feminine and attractive. You could take these same women, dress them up differently, and photograph them in a classy manner.

If indeed people associate feminine curves with "trashiness," I think that is a shame, and is probably due to the fact that women with these bodies don't get represented so much in the fashion world, and only in porn and nude modeling (which often has aesthetics that are closer to porn than to fashion). So we never even get to see how these women would look if dressed and photographed in a classy manner. Don't you think that women with diverse body types should get a chance to be presented in a beautiful and classy manner, not just the skinny and masculine body types present in high fashion?

He said: “Some women will never understand what is attractive to a guy, and no amount of evidence and logic is going to convince them otherwise.”

Actually, as an artist, I have a very good idea of what beauty is, and while I am not male, myself, as well as other women, are pretty damn intelligent enough to know what true beauty is.

I'm an artist also. I think that as an artist, you probably have a good sense of aesthetics, which is why you correctly find the aesthetics of many of Erik's photos to be lacking and to create the "white trash" look. However, I think you are getting too caught up in aesthetics, and you are missing the point that when Erik is talking about beauty, he is talking about proportions. He is saying that these are the physical proportions that are most attractive to heterosexual men. To say otherwise, without at least some evidence to back yourself up like the evidence that Erik has compiled here, is to prove T's comment correct.

I watch chick chanal everydays and I find all models are very beautifull and glamour. espceially when seen them face to face. the pictures Erik posted just some that look ugly. I find the white porn stars he posted look more uglier. almost frenkenstien-like. and the face has no any attaction. small eyes? deadly ghost skin? dry and pale scarecrowed hair?
dirty party spot on the face just like a dog? with a lot of stretchmark and a lot of fatty cellulite!!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't you ever get tired of being such a delusional, irrelevant dipshit? You aren't funny and you never will be. Why don't you stop replying to every post I make in here. You will never succeed in making me look bad and you will never expose any hypocrisy on my part because you are a fucking idiot. Please stop.

^^^^^^^^^^^
You are an idiot Der Arschloch. There is no way of getting around that fact. You are completely retarded and what's really sad is that you think that you are very witty and informed. In reality, you are just a loser and a racist.

Why do you care enough to respond to posts that are not addressed to you? Why does it bother you when people make posts that diss this piece of shit website? Shouldn't you be on stormfront with your pathetic kin folks? Is Erik's cock really that tasty that you feel the need to hang around here and defend him every chance you get?

If being a rational person puts me on a "high horse" then you must have very low standards. Licking Erik's ass on the internet is not going to get you anywhere dumbass.

As many people on here state the guys whom find women like J.lo, claudia schiffer and angelina joli have homo sexual tast? yesterday I did show a picture of the women of those sort you called "tranvestit gay" to my boyfriend. and the women like "SNOW" AND some porn star of Erik. without reading this site. my boyfriend answered immediatary he like the women "Erik said they look like tranvestit gay" my boyfriend said to me " yes pretty, what's wrong? I like her" after that I sent a picture of the porn star of Erik to him ( I really selected one I find she is pretty for me) but the answering I get from my boyfriend is
" Nope I don't like her, she is not pretty for me" so I asked him further. "which one is look feminine to you?" he answered "the first one".
I asked further " Don't you think the first one have feature look like male? she got bigger nose than second one, large shoulders, solid mussle, strong face's bone? awhile the second one got white skin, rounded cheeks and smaller nose"
he answered "Nope I find nothing wrong in the first one she is pretty for me so it's pretty, stop ask me stupid question like a kid, I cann't tell you why I like the first one more"
So, I told about the beauty ideal of this site to my boyfriend and said to him "
"Perhape you have homo sexual tast? so you like those women" ..........
He heard like that and begin to laugh and said
" Oh, Yes maybe I am? I don't mind and don't care."
that is all he said to me. and in my thinking. my boyfriend is no homo sexual because he so different from you, erik. he is easy going guy and NEVER JUDGE a women which one is pretty which one is not, the REAL male find this is STUPID. he seem to be bored very much when I asked him such a question because he said " MALE DON"T JUDGE and THEY ARE NOT COMPLICATE in GOSSIP AND EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF ANYTHING"
and as I observed my boyfriend, which women have thing opposite in what Erik stats as pretty he'd find she's ugly. but I don't know why he like me because I look feminine and not look like the women in his immegination. but he never said I look ugly awhile he said the other feminine women like on this site are ugly. and he prefers the women like Jennifer lopez, kim barsinger, angelina joli as beautiful. but maybe because the women like "melisande or snow " the pictures I showed to him, he finds they are too fat or red hair so he don't like. I don't know...

Infact long time ago I used to believe like Erik but after I got the first boyfriend in my life I find that not much males like the women in the way I used to think. such as my boyfriend Also in the same woman, which picture she appeared to be pale skin, slender delicate, small lips, doll-like cloth and character, narrow face. my boyfriend'd agree that woman dosen't look pretty in that pic, on the contrary when that same woman posed as tanned skin or dark, full mouth, rise her head up to make the jaw line and cheeksbone look big, solid mussle and large shoulders. he'd say she looked pretty on that pic. manytime he really nerved me in how he think.

You want me to admit that I'm a "racist" or force me to defend myself.
Well, I'm not going to give you that pleasure, you stupid inquisitorial dumbcunt.

Licking Erik’s ass on the internet is not going to get you anywhere dumbass.

I couldn't care less about Erik on a personal level, dumbfuck.
I came here cause I found the subject matter interesting.
You, on the other hand, think he's an idiot and the whole site a load of baloney, but you keep coming over and over, month after month, like a friggin' obsessive.

You don't need to admit anything asswipe. You are clearly a racist and that's the end of it. I don't need to dig anything up on you because it's all in your posts.

This site is retarded like you but unlike you it can be funny. I like making fun of this dumbass site and unlike you, I don't feel the need to rush to defend anyone on the internet. If you thought the subject matter was merely interesting then you wouldn't rush to poorly defend Erik's opinions with lame insults and irrelevant articles and websites.

Most of the posts you make here are insults directed at people who disagree with Erik and you want to call me a loser? Sit your tired ass down and try to grow a brain.

Many young girls already are in a Gulag - of the mind. The physical effects are the same as the real thing and as John Gray says(in Black Mass) - there were parts of the camp system where it was practically impossible to emerge alive.

Christian, your photo of Miss Crombez proves that off duty she is indeed more feminine because of her pale skin and facial expression; she could give that look at a show but the designers don't want it - for reasons that we don't have to guess at. You've provided a facinating insight, thanks.

Elize is being persecuted for her looks? Well going about the steets like that and built like she is, Elise must be pestered by men of certain proclivities who mistake her for one of their own.

You are approaching eugenics now. Why don't you just publish Nazi ideology on what is racially 'pure' and be done with it?

How can you even countenance having a website that promotes 'feminine beauty' and then try and intellectualise whether someone is beautiful or not? Is beauty only in the eye the beholder, when the beholder is you, and the woman is some soft porn star with wonky teeth?

Also, when you use porn models to slate the 'serious' models of the fashion industry, you mention gay men having something to do with it....delicious irony then, that you repeatedly hold up porn models as your standard of femininity, when almost every porn site is riddled with anal sex.

So, your idea of femininity is imperfect women with questionable morals getting buggered by six Latino men and yet you come down like a ton of bricks and cry 'masculine' for any girl blessed with nice cheekbones and above average height?

I think the whole thing about homosexuals running the fashion industry is just ridiculous! Here's the thing. Men on average find slender women more attractive. However, as in other cases, these attributes tend to often be exaggerated. , fake eye lashes, women get ridiculously large boobs(though boob jobs) in a bid to be more attractive, shave any body hair to look less masculine, corsets in the old days to make the waist smaller(now there are skirts and dresses which give the same effect), eye make up to make eyes look bigger, I could go on. So the skinny frames exaggerate attractive slenderness, make legs look longer(which is also viewed as attractive) and makes them look fit. So, why am I going on about this exaggeration of features? Well, the answer is simple. Men tend to like things out of the ordinary, fetishes if you wish, just look at the number of men who like giant boobs(especially on tiny women), underage looking women, petite women e.t.c. There is a catch though, you should only over-emphasize the features perceived attractive in women like a well-defined jaw(an undefined one makes the lady look chubby), thin legs and the things I mentioned above.

Elise is a good looking girl except for her broad looking shoulders which are also over-emphasized by her clothing, Ginger has a perfect body but her facial features are dull and weak thus making her look chubby and she has an inconsistent skin tone, Eunice, I like her but it's the skin again. The point I'm trying to make is there is no perfect woman, there just isn't! The above women are all very beautiful, but like the rest of us, they have flaws. I'd actually be happy to date any one of them, I find them all attractive, like most men I like women of various shapes and sizes.

Tim89,
What is "slender"? If by that you mean what is being advertised in the media then no. Most heterosexual men do not find this attractive.

You seem to confuse this being a natural desire of men with how the media influences people's thoughts and how they think. Many people on this board, including the owner of this site it seems, appear to not realize this.

The conclusion that what we see in the media of what is advertised as attractive women comes from a homosexual male influence is not ridiculous in the slightest when you are able to understand what is masculinity and femininity in the physical sense. When this is understood you quickly start to realize how physical femininity is shunned and even considered embarrassing attributes to possess (i.e. wide hips) in the mainstream. Then you compare the era of the mid 60s and back and see a very different kind of women that was admired. One more feminine. It is clear that the fashion industry changed this.

Further proof can be seen in media that does not have a homosexual male influence present. Things like Hip Hop magazines/videos and many pornography companies (although not surprisingly, with the exception of the more "mainstream" ones like Playboy or Vivid) feature very highly feminine women.

Godis,
if you had a body like Ginger's, it's a shame to hear that you don't anymore. Her's is a very lovely body.

By the way, was it you that suggested in another post from another article that the actress Christina Hendricks should lose 20 something pounds to be more feminine?

You misunderstand me. By slender I do not mean bone skinny, I mean reasonably slim. I did say that mainstream models do over-do it just like us tend to want Anold Schwarzenegger type muscles but most women find them repulsive. I did say Ginger's body is perfect and it is by the way, slender. Ginger's body is below average in terms of size. The fashion and advertisement industries say '... slim sells' and that's true but they overdo it. Still these women's bodies do sell but bodies like Ginger's would too. You also talk about the media's influence, there is some truth in that but there is a limit. If you use someone overweight, trust me, you can never hope to convince the public that they are attractive, you just can't. So to summarize, men on average would prefer bodies like Ginger's but they still find these models attractive.

About the homosexual thing: I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced and stating it repeatedly does not constitute an argument, it's an empty claim. Has there been a statistical analysis on the matter? Has it been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that this is the case? If not I suggest you guys drop this homosexual nonsense, otherwise you are making yourselves look irrational. If however, you have this information, please display it on the website.

Hip-hop magazines are mainly run by blacks who, I'm sorry to say, would NOT find Ginger's body attractive in the slightest degree. They have a different standard of beauty that has it's roots in Africa. Trust me, Ginger is a 2 by African standards!

About the 60's women: Sure the standard here has changed but still those women were nevertheless unattractive by the Black beauty standard(their butts were too flat, their hips too narrow and yes, they were too skinny!!!). Also, the feature these women in the 60's magazine all had in common was slenderness(like Ginger, bigger than her was bad), even the black ones conformed.

Porn shows all sizes and kinds of women, even skinny ones like models(think flexible ones- a big hit!). I do agree that some of these models have some masculine traits, but they are only slight, I mean they look like women! Any man who looks like them would look silly!

All of the points in your reply means you do not know what physical masculinity and femininity is. This is specifically in reference to the natural levels of testosterone and estrogen in the human body. All humans, regardless of sex, have this and depending on those levels it influences the body of a person making it more masculine of feminine. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. There are several articles on this site that talk about this. Search for them and read them because it is very difficult to engage in conversation with you on this.

Topics like you thinking that a homosexual influence in the kinds of women advertised in the mainstream is ridiculous are related to this.

I will say that trying to see it from your perspective perhaps you only read some articles thus far and have gotten a bad impression of this because of Erik's wording when talking about homosexuals. Personally, Erik comes across as a homophobe in numerous articles (as well as a racist) and this is one of the biggest flaws of this site. I expressed in a previous post how I hope one day another site by someone else emerges that tackles the same issues but with none of the negative slant Erik brings along.

In any case, many articles Erik has brought do have merit. The ones on homosexuals having an influence on the kind of female figure we see advertised today and on masculinity and femininity in the faces and bodies of both men and women are among them. Look them up as they are worth the read.

Some other points:

- You are not appreciating the influence that the media can have on people enough. You say there is a "limit". You use an overweight person as some sort of proof of this. However, many women and models that are advertised in the mainstream of our current society are mostly underweight. This is unhealthy and yet this has been accepted in the mainstream as attractive and desirable for one main reason. The media. Many people do not know what a healthy weight is on a girl thanks to the images promoted on TV, movies and in print. Since this has been going on for decades several generations have been programed into thinking a certain way because of the enormous influence that the fashion industry has on other areas and fields in the entertainment industry.

- You completely missed my point of Hip Hop magazines/videos. I mentioned this because of the physical femininity that the models in that field have. These models have figures and faces that are very feminine. This was to prove how in a field were heterosexuals dominate, women who are noticeably more feminine will be used in such media against the mainstream media of the current world. Again, please look up the articles on physical masculinity and femininity on this site to understand what I am talking about.

- You also misunderstood it when I mentioned porn. I'll make myself clearer. The companies that sell "normal" straight sex titles that are aiming to be more mainstream (i.e. Vivid) feature women that are closer to what is seen in mainstream media than those companies that do not aim to be more mainstream which feature girls that are more feminine.

- Your comments of the "black beauty standard" are grossly stereotyped. The women appreciated in media aimed at a Hip Hop audience and/or a specific black audience are much more diverse than you allow.

- In regards to 60s women, one again you missed my point because you are not understanding the issue of physical masculinity and femininity. The women in that era were noticeably more feminine and were in much healthier weight. Curves were also celebrated. This is in stark contrast to the world now and this change was entirely due to the fashion industries hold right after this era which went to alter it in all of mainstream media.

I am sorry if I missed the points you raised. However,I did not dispute the prevalence of masculine traits on high fashion models and yes I did read those articles the first time I visited this site. I am also aware of the influence hormones and genetics play on the skeletal system. It looks like we agree on these finer points.

Homosexuals: I understand your concern with eating disorders becoming almost epidemic by the promotion of unhealthy beauty standards, especially among young women. However, I still don't share your views on the homosexual issue. The reason for this is the statistics again, there are no articles of any statistical research carried out on this subject, you are making a 'leap of faith', the claim does not follow logically from the assumptions about the perceived masculinity of the women. Erik makes the same mistake. I did admit in my previous post that these women do possess some masculine traits but I made the claim that they are only slight.

Of course some women have higher levels of testosterone but they are nevertheless significantly lower than that of the average man(they are not men!), of course there are exceptions, for instance women with polycystic ovary syndrome. The thing is(you covered this in the first paragraph) most- if not all- people possess both masculine and feminine traits although one of the two is usually negligible in the respective sex. As I said, the masculine traits on the high fashion models are only slight but I do concede they are somewhat more significant than that of the average woman.

Furthermore, you have to realize that attacking the femininity(or lack thereof) of these models is not only irrelevant and uncalled for but also offensive to these women(this is my concern). The problem here is not their lack of perceived femininity but their unhealthy weight. That's what Erik should focus on. These women did not have a choice when it comes to their levels of femininity but most of them did when it comes to their weight. I admire Erik for creating this site, he has good intentions but he's misguided in his approach. WEIGHT is what he is supposed to focus on.

About the media: I was wrong about that one, the media(and culture) does have a greater influence on these standards. I just recalled a story about force feeding in some Middle Eastern and North African countries where obesity is a marital asset in females. Culture(of which the media is a large part of) does have a massive influence.

Of the 60's, Hip hop and porn: I did miss the point the first time. However, the problem is you assume men are not attracted to these women(those who appear mainstream), the truth is they are. Despite what you say the magazine, movie and porn sales are off the charts. Culture has convinced men that this is what beauty is and that's where the problem is.

Of the Black Beauty standard: I do accept the point you raised about the diversity of women in productions catering to mainly the black audience. Nevertheless, my point still stands, that a different beauty standard is at work, usually that of ladies with wide hips and well endowed in the 'butt department'. This generalization mostly holds whether the lady in question is a light or dark skinned black, Latino or Asian e.t.c.. I have notice however that the ladies in these videos are getting smaller.

If we agree on the influence hormones and genetics have on the skeletal system then you claiming that the masculine traits on the fashion models are only slight should not be coming through.

When one understands masculinity and femininity in the human body and face then it becomes as clear as day that the women are very masculine. Everything from the small features of the eyes, jaw, chin, eyebrows, overall shape of the face to the shoulders, hips, backside, height, etc... all point to masculinity. Not an opinion, just the way it is.

I can sympathize with your concern that saying this can come across as offensive to those women born highly masculine. However, do not confuse me with Erik as Erik's articles are can be quite derogatory in his examinations. Another thing is that this is a problem with the kind of world we live in where only one kind of standard is set and variety is not appreciated when it comes to women.

This leads me to the point of how weight is not the sole issue here and unlike what you suggest should not be the only factor that needs to be addressed. Again, at one point in the media age in the mainstream very feminine women were celebrated for their curves. This is not the case anymore as not only is this rarely advertised, but it is shunned upon by the media and in many social circles. Women who possess very feminine physical attributes feel ashamed and are treated as if they are defective with some even getting plastic surgery to "correct" their curves like hip reduction. This is a problem and the source is the fashion industry which promotes only underweight and very masculine women.

I don't think you understood me entirely in your reply on the paragraph in regards to Hip Hop magazines and pornography. You say that I think men are not attracted to what is advertised in the mainstream. Two things. First, not every man is. How many truly are I do not know. What I do know is that many men are not genuine about this. Many have been "programmed" by the media to qualify underweight and highly masculine women as very desirable. I know this because I was once like that many years ago. Also, many men could be homosexuals or bisexuals and not realize it or keep it in the closet. Once again, comments like this may sound offensive but it has more to do with the homophobic world we live in that would comes across as that way.

That is why I also think you believe it is a "leap of faith" that one would say that it is a homosexual male influence that is being pushed forth in regards to what the standard is that is being set for females in the media. It is not homophobic. First, you have to acknowledge the influence the fashion industry has on all areas of the media nowadays. You cannot even watch an award show without some sort of "fashion police" segment on. It makes sense because of all of the modeling work a woman can do, fashion modeling is the "major" leagues in terms of fame and fortune. And the ones in high class are very susceptible to start taking in whatever is being set in their world that features elitism and exclusivity in order to further be apart of a high class society. If you do not meet this, you can be "punished" for it by not being hired for movie roles or be the victim of bad press.

One example is American actress Christina Hendricks. She is a rarity in the present Hollywood world. A white women who is very curvy and in a very healthy weight. She has said in interviews that because of this fashion designers do not provide her clothing for her to attend galas and award shows as opposed to most other actresses (ones that are underweight and more masculine).

Fashion designers are disproportionately gay. Not a theory but a fact. If one understands what being "gay" is then the very fact that the models being noticeably very masculine should not surprise. I am not theorizing a conspiracy theory here but what I am saying is that the fashion designers are simply picking models and further grooming them to their aesthetic tastes. That is, the tastes of a gay man not a straight man. After several decades of this standard being set up and established we now live in a world that is so heavily influenced by this that it has changed the zeitgeist to the point where some truly heterosexual men would see a woman who is curvy and healthy but call her "fat" and undesirable.

Finally, in terms of the "black beauty standard" what you are talking about has far less to do with a standard "set" and more to do with just the typical ethnic features seen in many black women. However I agree a different standard is at work but what this standard is that is "set" is a standard from a heterosexual perspective as the models are far more noticeably feminine than the ones seen in the mainstream, which was my point.

As far as the ladies getting "smaller" in that media, I agree with you. It shouldn't come to as surprise of why this is though. Many moguls in the Hip Hop world have lately been investing in the fashion industry with even their own fashion lines as well.

When I said the masculinity among high fashion models is only slight, I was comparing them to the average man(call him A). These are the differences: First, even if these models have broad shoulders they are not similar to that of A whose shoulders are more powerful looking as a result of a larger bone structure, these women have small bone structures which is a feminine trait. Second, the facial features are also distinctively different from that of A, although some have sharp brow ridges they are not as prominent as that of A, they have angled but small jaws, low muscle compositions etc. In other words, despite their masculinity, if you spot one of them on the street you can actually tell she's female. I do not think we disagree here, maybe it was my careless use of the word 'slight'. I do concede that these traits are not slight compared to that of the average woman(but I was comparing them to A).

You are right about the under-appreciation of feminine beauty being of concern but I still think the core issue is weight. Taking your example of hip reduction: This surgery is usually accompanied by thigh reduction(and butt reduction in those well endowed) and involves liposuction, so no bone material is cut, only the subcutaneous fat is removed. The fat is stored in the areas as a result of oestrogen. This fat is generally significantly lower in underweight women who are now regarded as attractive hence my assertion that the main issue is the weight. If these models were to gain more weight, their hips would expand, their jaws less pronounced, their brows rounder thus achieving a more feminine appearance.

Oh and yeah, I checked out Christina Hendricks(I didn't know her), wow she's gorgeous!!! A few years ago Angelina Jolie was also just angelic, now she's just plain, she ruined her beauty. I hope Christina stays the way she is and does not succumb to the pressure to be thin.

It seems we agree on the issue of some men being attracted to thin women and the influence of the media but yet you go on to contradict yourself. If these are 'the tastes of a gay man not a a straight man' then you are also saying no heterosexual men are attracted to these women. You have to realize that these women, although relatively masculine, are NOT men and they don't look like men(they look like masculine women!), so a man who is attracted to them(but not to men) is by definition straight. So you can have completely straight men being attracted to women who look like that. As I'm sure you'll agree, there's more to a woman than her looks e.g how she caries herself is a significant part of femininity. You also say that fashion designers are disproportionately gay, again where are the statistics? You do however make a plausible cause by the shifting fashion and beauty zeitgeist influencing the beauty standards, from this follows the conclusion that fashion designers are themselves influenced by this already existing standard. I think the gay hypothesis is implausible because this all started with Twiggy(the first international supermodel) back in in 50s-60's before the runway, she was a success, not because the gays told people to love her, they just did. That explains the bone skinny-standard.

This ludicrous beauty standards poses a grim future for women and more and more prominent women are getting thinner, setting a bad examples for young girls. An increasing number of girls as young as 9 have body issues. Our society has gone mad and it seems most of the worth of a woman is based on her looks.

I wasn't implying that masculine women are "men". I was noting that their physical traits and characteristics are "masculine" because of the influence of natural testosterone in them. See this information can be seen as an attack of identity and character of "man" and "woman" but these are just concepts that societies have imposed which are out-dated. Yes, there are woman that are very "girly" but then there are also those woman who can keep up with the boys in any sport. Vice versa as well.

I also wasn't saying that all men who are attracted to these women are gay. However, I am going to guess (just my hypothesis) that more often than not those men who continually and genuinely are attracted to women who are very masculine from head to toe are not 100% heterosexual. I do not say this as an insult. It would come across this way nowadays because of the rampant homophobia that exists in our world. If this were a more mature society (and hopefully one day it will be), then these issues and comments wouldn't be seen as any sort of an attack.

I'm reminded of many stories I've heard on TV when a man would recount a time he met woman but found out later on that he actually was a man. When I looked at these "women" I wonder how these men were fooled since they were so masculine. Now with this information it makes me wonder if they are really totally straight. If they aren't completely or not at all straight, they might not even realize it which is sadly very common in our world.

It's an interesting topic to think about. Because really, "gay" and "straight" isn't about the personality of who a person is attracted to, it's the physical features that one is attracted to. A penis and vagina are the main components in that formula for attraction but it is not the only part. Faces and bodies come into play for physical attraction and I think that physical masculinity and femininity are the other elements. It would make sense when helping to understand "gay", "straight" and bisexual. More studies should be done on this.

In regards of Twiggy, Erik noted in one of his articles that the fashion models back in a specific era (I think 40s-60s) were more feminine and not underweight and at this point it was run by mostly heterosexuals. The shift in power went back to homosexuals and that's when the change started back to what has been continuing to this day. One can make almost anything popular by good promotion and reeling in the right people tyo support your cause or taste. Like I noted before, people in higher class societies tend to involve themselves in activities exclusive to them which would lead to following many trends which would then become desirable for those in lower classes simply because the rich partake in this.

Weight is definitely a key issue but the example of hip reduction surgery I gave was to note not the actual procedure, but the motive that many of the clients who request this have. Wide hips (a very feminine trait) is considered "fat" in the current mainstream society. Therefore, what the surgeons do is to make the illusion that the hips are more narrow. Of course they can't alter the bone structure but they can creatively re-sculpt it to make the hips look less feminine or in the mainstream society's eyes "more attractive".

Notice also the pattern in Hollywood with female actresses. When they start to achieve a spike in popularity they almost always go on to lose unnecessary weight and also undergo plastic surgery that makes their faces come across more masculine. A good example of this is Angelina Jolie. Compare her face from years ago. It was rounder fuller. Now she not only looks emaciated but her face looks more "chiseled" bringing about a more masculine look. A shame. I thought she was a lot better looking back then.

I'm glad to see you find Christina Hendricks gorgeous. I think she is an amazing woman. Her body is so beautiful and such a rarity in mainstream Hollywood for a white woman. It's a sight for sore eyes in a sea of skin and bones. Only thing is that I wonder how much of that is due to her being on the show. The show's producers want to accurately recreate that era and that includes how women looked, which ties back to what we were taking about of how femininity was more appreciated back in that era. She is encouraged to have the body that she has for the show. But when the show ends, I hope that doesn't mean she will then become another victim of the fashion industry's influence.

Sorry for the late reply. I had connection problems. Anyway, I agree that the rigid definitions of 'man' and 'woman' do not accurately reflect the actual reality of sexuality(whether gay, straight or bi) and sexual identity(male or female) both on a biological and a psychological level. Instead of having absolute extremities for the population, we have to redefine these states of sexual being as a function that is continuous over this range, consisting of a combination of the two(straight or gay) in various proportions except at the end points. It would not surprise me if the result is a normal distribution, i.e. most people have bisexual or close to bisexual predispositions but are conditioned by society, culture e.t.c to suppress them. Furthermore, it comes as no surprise that these crude definitions still hold as I believe they are due to strict cultures and religions which are reluctant to modification and intellectual advancement at least in this area. We live in a world where individuals persistently deny the evidence right in front of them. I sometimes find myself wishing we were more like the 'Vulcans' from 'Star Trek', cold logical beings.

I looked at the link to the article you provided. I have read it before, I did so again to ensure I remembered it fully. I am still unconvinced. Choosing specific examples does not constitute a statistical analysis and there are other factors to consider:

1. SEXUAL CONSIDERATIONS: Are the designers themselves(assuming they are largely gay) choosing models they find sexually pleasing? If not then their sexuality is irrelevant. It is important to note that this may be down to aesthetics not related to sexuality e.g. babies are mostly considered highly attractive without the sexual component. They may find the models striking or photogenic or whatever, I hear that being said a lot.

2.Cause and effect considerations i.e. did the industry set the standard or was it a result of a larger cultural phenomena?(Because something is prominent to an observer does not imply it is the cause).

3. Is it an after-effect of the obesity crisis in the developed world? Think back to the force-feeding example I gave in one of my other posts, this happens in the third world especially in the poorest of countries where food is scarce and the population is largely malnutrition and thus underweight. In both these cases, you identify immediately the commonality. A largely unattainable ideal, the definition of beauty. 'Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder' springs to mind. Most people look at the bright side of this saying, that everyone is beautiful. I look at the rational implication of this statement, that beauty is subjective. Now, we know that humans are species of collective tendencies on a large scale with very little divergence from the collective norm. We conclude that that it is expected that beauty standards change over time.

There are other factors to be considered but I'll submit and stop at these. It CAN'T be as simple as 'Gay men in fashion = skinny relatively masculine models'

About the weight issue, as I said underweight women have no discernible hip, buttock and thigh fat thus achieve the less feminine look. The 'standard' says 'skinny is the ideal' and by reducing the hip width, you get closer to that ideal. Looking more masculine is not the goal, being and looking skinny is. The masculinity is an inevitable result of this change. Hence my assertion that weight is the main issue.

Yeah, the attempt to achieve an accurate representation of the era may be behind Christina's success. Try to imagine her in Angelina's movies(e.g. Wanted or Lara croft movies), she just doesn't fit. What I'm saying is that the standing of women in movies has become more masculine. The women are taller and they beat up and are sometimes significantly more powerful than men. When we look at how our society has defined femininity in the past we soon realize that it had the characteristics of vulnerability, weakness, grace(instead of brute force) and the constant need to be protected. This shift in the representation of women may have resulted in a psychological 'ripple' necessitating that they look more masculine to provide realism. I don't know. You may consider this my number 4 consideration in the list above. I think Christina is practically perfect but the rest of the public seem to not think so. I can't believe she doesn't even make it into the 'most beautiful women' lists! It's crazy!